Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Renegade

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
I'm still holding, but just can't play much. :(

2
Trading HUC / Re: Exchanges
« on: July 16, 2014, 04:01:22 AM »
Cryptsy... FINALLY!

Cross fingers & hope for BTC-e! :D

3
The game is a lot better now!

I got raped for a few hundred coins as I wasn't paying attention, but... still a lot better. :D

4
Trading HUC / Re: Exchanges
« on: June 16, 2014, 01:28:17 PM »
It looks like HUC isn't on AGX anymore. :(

I have coins there listed & a wallet, but I don't see an actual exchange listing.

5
Development / Re: Thoughts about upcoming changes
« on: June 06, 2014, 04:16:37 PM »
Really (really!) think it is time to allow players to buy armour.  Giving them protection for a random number of steps. That would protect human players from bots and increase the value of the coin.  Also allow players to buy more explosives (or swords?) to increase kill radius.  Swords would allow the players to survive the destruct command, but would be more expensive.

It's extremely difficult to introduce a game element that bots can't use more effectively than humans. The best advantage that a human has is a shifting set of conditions, or too many conditions that make the actual bot programming near impossible/impractical.

It's very difficult to do.

But like Snailbrain said, bots can use the same elements...

6
General Discussion / Re: Huntercoin now on coinwik.org
« on: June 03, 2014, 02:14:35 AM »
Excellent! Thanks!  8)

I'll add to it later when I have some extra time.

7
Development / Re: Natural Disaster
« on: May 08, 2014, 03:50:07 AM »
Would be quite logical, if you think a huge volcano would totally revamp the landscape after a disaster. I'm probably going to be outta the picture for a little, my PC crashed lastnight during my sleeping hours. And well the dam thing wont even give me POST errors so I think it's shot lol. But I really like the idea of random maps!!! Different chrono worlds that you can be thrashed into via a disasters destructive powers

Random maps could be a problem. They need to be "symmetrical" so as not to give any one colour an advantage. But beyond that, there is a lot of potential.

Can you imagine a map where a coin spawn area is not reachable, and only accumulates coins until the next disaster where they are then "blown up" & spread out to other areas of the map? It would create a massive amount of anxiety and expectation for the next disaster as people race to get that huge treasure trove when it becomes available. :) Coins locked away until the next disaster... get ready... get set... GO! :D

8
Development / Re: Natural Disaster
« on: May 08, 2014, 03:46:14 AM »
not important for now - but i did say the map would probably never change.. but - it may not be as difficult to change the map after a disaster (maybe randomly select out of a few maps).

we'll give domob a break for now :D

That would really be very cool. New maps would force people to rethink strategies, and would also negate bot strategies for hard-coded strategies that aren't abstracted out (i.e. fast & dirty bots).


9
Development / Re: Auto Destruct
« on: April 28, 2014, 05:18:58 AM »
Just a quick thought...

Because the blockchain offers perfect information, it might be good to introduce an auto-destruct bot behaviour along with the auto-destruct command that is in the blockchain.

e.g. Waypoints with an AD (or the other AD described above), AND waypoints with no AD but the client itself fires off the destruct command once the destination is reached or the condition is met.

This would offer 2 possibilities, and would essentially make it impossible to know if a non-blockchain entry without an AD is real or not. This would create confusion that would ultimately benefit human players (most likely).

The drawback to what I've described is that it requires the client to be running, where the blockchain AD entry does not.

However, it would have the slight drawback of an additional blockchain entry, which probably isn't a big deal considering the possible benefits.

Then again, this might be a bit out-of-scope for the QT, though it would be great for MM's client.

10
Bots / Re: BGB Simple Bot Added to QT-Client
« on: April 23, 2014, 05:28:57 AM »
can anyone do a video tutorial and upload it somewhere? it would be of great help for us newbies

really, a video tutorial..... well i spent the past few hours on this for you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ



BWAHAHAHAHA~! ;D

Good one!  8)

11
Development / Re: Disaster & Miner Incentives
« on: April 20, 2014, 04:58:48 PM »
good points..

I think if it's 100 huc, i don't think botters would pay for 200 bots or 2000 bots. The high fee is to stop people creating 1000s of players right after the disaster.
If they created 1000 hunters at 100 each, that's 100,000 coins. Not sure it would be advantageous enough for them.. not if they only get 1 huc when they die (99 coins are lost) so they can't recycle.

but yep the new player thing isn't so good... but at least they have the same chance still. Someone could just buy 100 hucs... it may also increase demand. For peple that don't want to spend that much, they can just wait for the price to go down.

not sure though.. can't think of another solution atm.

When you say, "not if they only get 1 huc when they die (99 coins are lost) so they can't recycle," do you mean they are "burned" coins or they are distributed back into the map somehow?

I'm thinking that it would be funny if those coins were "ground up" and sprayed all over the map.

i.e. There are 113,497 tiles that are walkable (not obstacles) and that coins can be found on (not spawning area). Spraying the coins evenly would shower each tile with about 0.00087240 coins. While it's not a lot, it would prevent coin burn, and would...

Oh... nevermind... I just thought about the bloat in the game state. Stupid idea to do that evenly.

But still... preventing coin "burn" is likely a good thing. If you can make 500 coins by permanently destroying 100, that's a good deal. I'd expect people to go for that. It would be a deflationary push on HUC though, and perhaps, depending on how used, maybe a bit much if 10,000 coins are burned every disaster.

Showering the map might work with larger amounts though would help prevent burn.

But that does seem like a decent option to prevent people from making too many right after a disaster.

Another bonus there... if it's to slow down creation, you could say the price is something like this:

120 - (# of blocks since disaster)

That would effectively be 2 hours, about, before the price of a team returned to 1 HUC.

To be honest, 120 tiles isn't very far.

Would it be better to consider how long it takes an enemy colour to reach your home base? Or some portion thereof?

To my thinking, the time shouldn't be about "time", but rather about distance that can be travelled. Does that make sense?

But from the discussion, and thinking a bit more - I think your idea about only getting back 1 HUC makes the most sense so far.

12
Development / Re: Disaster & Miner Incentives
« on: April 20, 2014, 03:42:32 AM »
Regarding teleportation and pruning - got it. Makes more sense to have complete destruction there for a clean start.

Thinking out loud:
What if, after a disaster block, the Fee for a hunter is very expensive. 100 HUCs (random number), this tapers down after X blocks (10k? 3k?) to 1 HUC.
Obviously wouldn't solve the problem, but maybe can limit the competition make harder for people to create thousands of bots after disaster block
Also, these hunters would have to drop 100 HUCs if they are killed :) - I'm not sure if the code automatically relates price of team with general death, or if they are both just set as 1... so not sure how much work it is to do.
edit: may have negative effect on new players if it's 100 huc

Here's the problem distilled into a single word:

Distribution.

I believe that what we're fumbling around with is, "How can the coins get distributed as broadly as possible?"

Higher distribution is the key. It leads to the network effect and exponential growth. (What's the technical term for that? There's an equation for it - something like N^2.)

If it's 100 coins per hunter, and there are X coins on the map, I might think to myself, "Heck, I'll just write a bot to wait for a disaster, then spawn hunters to go collect. What is the optimal number of hunters if there are X coins?"

But 100 coins is likely to put a damper on new or small players.

But, I think the idea has merit. Perhaps something like a curve that curves over time back to 1 HUC per team?

For example... (these are just numbers I'm pulling out of my butt for an example)

Team #1 costs 1 HUC.
Team #2 costs 2 HUC.
Team #3 costs 3 HUC.
Team #4 costs 4 HUC.
Team #5 costs 5 HUC.
Team #6 costs 10 HUC.
Team #7 costs 20 HUC.
Team #8 costs 30 HUC.
Team #9 costs 40 HUC.
Team #10 costs 50 HUC.
Team #11 costs 100 HUC.
Team #12 costs 200 HUC.
Team #13 costs 300 HUC.
Team #14 costs 400 HUC.
Team #15 costs 500 HUC.
Team #16 costs 1000 HUC.
Team #17 costs 2000 HUC.
...
Team #21 costs 10,000 HUC.
Team #22 costs 11,000 HUC.
...
etc.

Then for each block over the next 4 hours (or some time - maybe 12 hours or 2 hours?) the costs shrink proportionately (along some curve or linearly) down to 1 HUC per team.

That will not address players with multiple computers or VMs, but at some point they really need a LOT of computers/VMs.

It is unlikely that many players will have many computers to "get around" those costs. And with disasters being infrequent, it's not going to be cost effective to buy more hardware. (But renting cloud computing might be practical.)

The question then is about the time advantage. Hunters can only go up to the mid-way point where the entrance to the middle of the map is before they must turn back and be guaranteed of cashing in their coins. So, that's a major consideration in doing the math.

The aim should be to prevent botters from creating thousands of bots and to give human players enough time to "get in on the action" so that coins are more widely distributed (so that there is a larger network effect).

A possible twist to that scenario is for a disaster to take place in 2 parts:

1) Disaster "pending" notification - it will happen in X blocks.
2) Until X blocks have passed and the disaster takes place, all coins dropped go back to a coin spawning area.

That would give everyone notice of the disaster, which would benefit humans most of all as they can't pay attention 100% of the time where a bot can. The X blocks there give the human players a "grace" period that is (almost) useless to the bots.

I like your thinking..
the problem is that making it so that the cost per team goes up the more teams you have, is that it can only be enforced on a cosmetic level in client. So people can just modifiy client and pay 1 huc for all. This is how bitcoin/namecoin is designed :/ -
it would be hard work, but it's probably possible to price Teams  at 50 HUCs (all the time), then you do a special nametx on that name to top it up with hunters. maybe it cost 0.1 huc per hunter. After a disaster maybe this price method could do your curve

If 100 HUC, someone would need to spend 100,000 coins for 1000 teams..  he can of course get the majority back by recycling them (unless the generals still only drop 1huc when killed, maybe that's better, and the other 99 coins are lost).

Got it & understood.

I was fumbling to come up with something that wouldn't exclude small/new players and that would limit the ability of larger players/botters to create many teams.

It's a difficult and general problem. i.e. How do you allow people to do X, but limit the ability of consolidated capital (or corporations) to do the same?

Whatever restriction is posited needs to attempt to be least punitive for new players. But, it seems like this is going to be extremely difficult.

At 100 HUC per team, that will affect regular players even more than it will affect botters. e.g. You have a botter that has built up a 20,000 HUC war chest, so he can put out 200 bots, but a regular player is unlikely to have built up a war chest of that size, and even if he did, it's not possible for a human player to control 200 teams. New players are highly unlikely to spend 100 HUC on a team.

You also have the problem of 100 HUC teams getting stuck in the spawning area, which would be devastating for that poor kid that put everything he had into 1 team for the chance to "strike it rich" in the disaster aftermath.

So I'm not sure that price will be that much of a factor.

Perhaps a "time out" where for 1 hour no new teams can be created? That would give humans an opportunity to notice that there was a disaster. Bots will notice immediately, so a time out will mostly benefit humans as it compensates for the human inability to pay attention 100% of the time, i.e. it compensates some for AFK.

The again... perhaps we are thinking about this entirely backwards? Perhaps it is best for the scenario to make no sense at all, and to be purely punitive, so that nobody in their right mind would do it? i.e. Instead of trying to make the playing field level for humans, perhaps make the playing field insanely hostile? I'm not sure how to do that though. Perhaps 100 HUC to create only a general (no hunters) and the general drops 1 HUC per move until he has 0 HUC or has dropped 99 HUC? Every move then he would need to make more than 1 HUC. Dunno... just blathering.

13
Development / Re: Disaster & Miner Incentives
« on: April 19, 2014, 05:50:12 PM »
Regarding teleportation and pruning - got it. Makes more sense to have complete destruction there for a clean start.

Thinking out loud:
What if, after a disaster block, the Fee for a hunter is very expensive. 100 HUCs (random number), this tapers down after X blocks (10k? 3k?) to 1 HUC.
Obviously wouldn't solve the problem, but maybe can limit the competition make harder for people to create thousands of bots after disaster block
Also, these hunters would have to drop 100 HUCs if they are killed :) - I'm not sure if the code automatically relates price of team with general death, or if they are both just set as 1... so not sure how much work it is to do.
edit: may have negative effect on new players if it's 100 huc

Here's the problem distilled into a single word:

Distribution.

I believe that what we're fumbling around with is, "How can the coins get distributed as broadly as possible?"

Higher distribution is the key. It leads to the network effect and exponential growth. (What's the technical term for that? There's an equation for it - something like N^2.)

If it's 100 coins per hunter, and there are X coins on the map, I might think to myself, "Heck, I'll just write a bot to wait for a disaster, then spawn hunters to go collect. What is the optimal number of hunters if there are X coins?"

But 100 coins is likely to put a damper on new or small players.

But, I think the idea has merit. Perhaps something like a curve that curves over time back to 1 HUC per team?

For example... (these are just numbers I'm pulling out of my butt for an example)

Team #1 costs 1 HUC.
Team #2 costs 2 HUC.
Team #3 costs 3 HUC.
Team #4 costs 4 HUC.
Team #5 costs 5 HUC.
Team #6 costs 10 HUC.
Team #7 costs 20 HUC.
Team #8 costs 30 HUC.
Team #9 costs 40 HUC.
Team #10 costs 50 HUC.
Team #11 costs 100 HUC.
Team #12 costs 200 HUC.
Team #13 costs 300 HUC.
Team #14 costs 400 HUC.
Team #15 costs 500 HUC.
Team #16 costs 1000 HUC.
Team #17 costs 2000 HUC.
...
Team #21 costs 10,000 HUC.
Team #22 costs 11,000 HUC.
...
etc.

Then for each block over the next 4 hours (or some time - maybe 12 hours or 2 hours?) the costs shrink proportionately (along some curve or linearly) down to 1 HUC per team.

That will not address players with multiple computers or VMs, but at some point they really need a LOT of computers/VMs.

It is unlikely that many players will have many computers to "get around" those costs. And with disasters being infrequent, it's not going to be cost effective to buy more hardware. (But renting cloud computing might be practical.)

The question then is about the time advantage. Hunters can only go up to the mid-way point where the entrance to the middle of the map is before they must turn back and be guaranteed of cashing in their coins. So, that's a major consideration in doing the math.

The aim should be to prevent botters from creating thousands of bots and to give human players enough time to "get in on the action" so that coins are more widely distributed (so that there is a larger network effect).

A possible twist to that scenario is for a disaster to take place in 2 parts:

1) Disaster "pending" notification - it will happen in X blocks.
2) Until X blocks have passed and the disaster takes place, all coins dropped go back to a coin spawning area.

That would give everyone notice of the disaster, which would benefit humans most of all as they can't pay attention 100% of the time where a bot can. The X blocks there give the human players a "grace" period that is (almost) useless to the bots.



14
Development / Re: Disaster & Miner Incentives
« on: April 19, 2014, 09:17:38 AM »
to prevent miners to "cheat", i do another suggestion:
what if instead of dying, players just lost coin they are carrying as a loot and got teleported back at random spawn points? (and the crown reset itself?)
this way everyone could start moving already next block without waiting new_name
I think a main point of disaster is to clear the map, and thus I believe we should actually really kill the players.  Even if we just moved them, a miner could cheat even easier by just creating one or two more blocks moving his own hunters onto the squares right next to the spawn area first, assuming they contain a lot of loot from players who tried to stay safe there (e. g., crown holder).

BTW, the more I think about the idea, the more I like disaster.  It will probably not only prevent crowding of the map by cleaning it from time to time, but it will also incentivise players to not crowd in the first place and instead cash in coins earlier just because of the risk of being killed by a disaster.  This will probably be good for game play.

I'm not finished reading this thread... but here goes...

I like Mithril Man's idea. Here's a twist that I think you might like, domob:

Teleportation to a random spawning area, or any spawning area of a different color. (Has problems - new player generation has an advantage and massive bot army generation could clean up there.)

Can we say... BLOODBATH!?!

Imagine the total chaos, destruction, bedlam, devastation! It would almost be as good as a "cleanse". :D

Or, perhaps random type of disaster? 1 in 10 is a "teleport", 8 in 10 are a "cleanse", the last being a "???" or whatever.

I'll continue reading after I finish some more work...

BTW - Some wicked cool stuff happening in this thread! :D

15
Development / Re: Fee structures for moves?
« on: April 16, 2014, 03:36:09 AM »
FEE's :

0.002 hucs per 100 character.
Domob will patch later and we will test later.
Voice any opinions asap.

This should at least temporary get fees out of the way so we can concentrate on some of the other improvements.
The fees are not set in stone and can probably be improved, but for now we think this will do.
Once pruning etc are implemented, fees may be reduced.

What is that 0.002 HUC? Is that per block? That's 2.88 HUC per day just to have 100 teams/characters. Is it teams or individual hunters?

I'm not so sure that's a great idea to have it per block per hunter. That would be 8.64 HUC per day for 100 teams. That's pretty expensive upkeep.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4